Honble BALIA, J.–Head learned counsel for the parties.

(1). This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10.12.1986, by which the petition filed by respondent-Shyama, since deceased was allowed.

(2). The facts leading to this appeal, as noticed briefly are that in the Jamabandi of the land records concerning village Harsolav, Tehsil Merta, name of one Govind Dan was recorded as khatader from Samvat Year 2008 to 2027 i.e. to say from 1951-52 to 1970-71. On 17.8.1971, an application was made by respondents Shyama and Pusa alleging inter alia that the land comprising of Khasra Nos. 3146 to 3150, 3179 to 3781 and 3183 are cultivated by them since before Samwat Year 2012 i.e. before commencement of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and they are the khataders of the land in question, therefore, their names be entered as khataders in place of Govind Dan, whose name has wrongly appeared as khatader in the land records. The Tehsildar after obtaining the report from the Patwari, who in turn had examined Kalyan Singh and Prithvi allegedly two of the lineal descendants of the deceased Govind Dan ordered the mutation to be made in favour of said Shyama and Pusa on 24.8.1971, which was confirmed on 7.9.1971.

(3). In the first instance 22 persons alleging themselves to be representing different branches of the original holder Govind Dan in lineal decendency as head of their respective branches challenged the aforesaid orders in appeal before Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The said appeal was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate by his order dated 8.9.1975 holding it to be barred by time.

(4). However, the present appellant Budh Dan S/o. Awar Dan also claiming to be one of the lineal decendants of Govind Dan filed a revision before the Board of Revenue directly against the order dated 24.8.1971 inter alia on the ground that the Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to pass any order for making alteration in the mutation entry because by notification dated 11.9.1957 the jurisdiction to make any order under Section 135 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act for effecting change in the land records was exclusively vested in the village panchayat. The other contention which was raised before the Board of Revenue was that the impugned order dated 24.8.1971 was passed in breach of principles of natural justice, as no proper notices were issued to all the persons interested in the land. Both these pleas found favour with the Board of Revenue and by order dated 8.1.1979 the mutation entry No. 249 dated 24.8.1971 was quashed.

(5). This led to filing of writ petition No. 157/79 by Shyama one of the applicant claiming mutation in his name in place of Govind Dan.

(6). Learned Single Judge by his judgment under appeal dated 10.12.1986 has allowed the writ petition. Considering Clause (b) of Section 260 and the two notifications issued thereunder dated 27.10.1956 published on 8.11.1956 and 11.9.1957 published on 3.10.1957, the former was referred to in later notification, the learned Single Judge opined that conferment of power on any other officer or authority to the exclusion of statutory officer or authority provided under the Act is beyond the competence of the State Government and such power is not vested in the State Government under Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 260 of the Act. Hence, the Board of Revenue was not correct in holding that the Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to make the impugned order for altering the entires in the land records. The learned Single Judge also found that in the facts and circumstances, a general notice to all the concerned inviting objection to the application made by the petitioner, was given due compliance of principles of natural justice. The learned Judge also noticed that in view of the fact that there are hundreds of decedents claiming interest in the land in question, the only reasonable course open to the Tehsildar was to give a public notice inviting objections from all interests and failur

Click Here to Read the rest of this document